AnOther Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 [quote user="Clarkkent"]Shouldn't you be concentrating your guns on a system where, before stepping down, a president ensured legislation which would protect him from the threat of imprisonment for his own corrupt activities?[/quote]And what might the point of that be may I ask, if 60 million French put up with it what business is it of ours.I suggest you listen to yourself because in practice what you advocate would be little different to living in France and complaining that there are no pubs where you can get a pint of real ale or chip shops in every town, as some indeed do. Whether they have left UK or not most will still have close ties with children, friends, and relatives etc. plus of course, to one extent or another, their finances will be inexorably influenced by what goes on there so to expect them to turn their backs completely, never to take another moments interest, is patently ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Good Heavens. What a lot of intemperate invective coming from people who longer live in Britain.I live in the UK and I feel pretty ill tempered about it all [:@][:@] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 My daughter lives in the UK, wants to move but can't get a buyer for her house even though she has dropped the price by quite a bit. Pension value has dropped. Saving not earning hardly any interest etc. Another hard working Brit shafted by the government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velcorin Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 When Maire of Paris, Chirac managed to claim EUR 15million for personal food expenses in 1 year (according to Canard Enchaine), official functions were paid for seperately. On top, there were 4 luxury apparments for his offspring, with rents of EUR 5.2million per annum. Strangely, all the paperwork seems to have disappeared.Sort of puts the British MPs into the 4th division really[:)] They're only playing at it!How did he, and his family, eat all that food? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mint Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 [quote user="Russethouse"]Good Heavens. What a lot of intemperate invective coming from people who longer live in Britain.I live in the UK and I feel pretty ill tempered about it all [:@][:@][/quote]Well said, RH, if I still lived in the UK, I'd be more than "pretty ill tempered"........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkkent Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 [quote user="Russethouse"] Good Heavens. What a lot of intemperate invective coming from people who longer live in Britain.I live in the UK and I feel pretty ill tempered about it all [:@][:@][/quote]So do I. What I had wanted to do was to (a) put this into some form of context (and another poster has just done this far better than I could) and (b) (and I did not do this very well) relate the discussion to all those ex-patriates that I have met who sit around regurgitating Daily Mail bile about how bad Britain is without relating it to the state of France. They are frequently unable to do this because they do not see French tv or read French newspapers.The MPs (and it is not all of them) have brought shame on Parliament by their actions. But how many people sitting in judgement on them have not availed themselves of "perks" from their own employer at some time, even if it is only using employers' time and facilities to access this forum during working time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 If you want to be an MP and the party you are attached to think you would be a good candidate they put you up for election in a safe seat which could possibly be at the other end of the country. To get elected there you have to be resident so you buy a constituency home and then claim on it. They still however keep the original home back at the other end of the country.To my mind basically an MP is employed to serve the people in that constituency by those voters, its a job. Now if I went for a job at the other end of the country I would have to relocate. I might get a one off payment by the company to relocate but keeping my old house would be down to me. Claiming expenses on the new house just wouldn't happen, you would never get away with it with any company.Then to claim for an apartment, flat or whatever in London to be near the House of Commons leaving me with three places to support is a bit out of order. I can understand one house and a flat because of the uniqueness of the job but not two houses and a flat.That's one example and there are loads more.With regards to claiming 'perks' on expenses you are probably right but only in a minor sense. One might technically claim for using company petrol to go shopping but not for going on a touring holiday of Scotland for example. One might make the odd call on the company mobile to tell the wife you would be late home but to use it for every family call would be ripping my company off and not allowed. Whole scale claiming of items like bath plugs, toilet seats, drains etc just don't happen. I have known many a person sacked over the years for falsifying expenses.The issue here is that these people have behaved within the rules and legally it appears have done nothing wrong but as DC said today in the house they have taken advantage of those rules and they need to be changed and quickly. Setting up some form of committee to go through all this will take months. As DC said today the PM has created so many committees that he probably has one to decide if he has tea or coffee for his mid morning break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 [quote user="Clark Kent"][quote user="Russet House"] Good Heavens. What a lot of intemperate invective coming from people who longer live in Britain.I live in the UK and I feel pretty ill tempered about it all [:@][:@][/quote]So do I. What I had wanted to do was to (a) put this into some form of context (and another poster has just done this far better than I could) and (b) (and I did not do this very well) relate the discussion to all those expatriates that I have met who sit around regurgitating Daily Mail bile about how bad Britain is without relating it to the state of France. They are frequently unable to do this because they do not see French tv or read French newspapers.The MPs (and it is not all of them) have brought shame on Parliament by their actions. But how many people sitting in judgement on them have not availed themselves of "perks" from their own employer at some time, even if it is only using employers' time and facilities to access this forum during working time?[/quote]The difference is if you get perks from your employer its their business, if you get perks from the Government it's everyone's ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I share RH's and other angst!And BTW: whilst many may not still live in the UK, one has to presume that many financial aspects affect you: and your future.If anyone really needed convincing of just how politicians view the electors, then Brown provided an excellent illustration this morning. In an interview on the outrage of MP's venal expenses, he stated (Paraphrased) "We need now to move along on this as quickly as possible in order that the public can put out of their mind their opinion that politicians are only out for what they can get!" Right. Us dumb bunnies will immediately forget what has been happening and simply suddenly in a sort of overnight Damascene conversion start believing all politicians are whiter than white and jolly good guys and gels and that everything in the garden is suddenly rosy again! In their dreams!Not only did I find his attitude patronising and hugely condescending, but an insult to my intellect and the longevity of my memory. Indeed, he and his cabal of crooks and liars may well immediately forget such trifles as election manifesto promises (unimportant stuff like PR, A referendum on Europe etc) in their porcine scramble to get to the trough, but I don't however: and millions of others I suspect! Boy! Does this spavined country ever need a complete change in its political system!At this point, perhaps it is well worthwhile considering another aspect of all this: last year, Britain’s total government spend was £ 580 Billion!To place this perhaps into some perspective it is useful to then consider the gross annual revenues of the World’s top five mega-corporations.Exon-Mobil: $390 Billion: = £269:WallMart: $374 “” = £258:Royal Dutch Shell: $355 = £245:BP: $292: = £201: Toyota: $264: = £182:Now, to place this into tighter perspective, UK Government last year spent nearly the sum revenues of Shell, BP and Toyota!Or another way, more than the total of both Exon and WallMart’s gross revenues!Are we receiving good value then?I would suggest not on your life!For 2009-09 the forecast (Ho Ho!) is £629!!With, however, dear Alistair’s somewhat open handed largesse, of recent, I fear the actual number may well be significantly larger.The suggestion mooted herein earlier that MPs ought to be remunerated in a similar fashion to directors of large companies fills me with mind numbing horror!The old Northern adage here springs to mind: "Treat 'em mean: keep 'em keen!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkkent Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I didn't write perks, I wrote "perks". In other words, self justification for a morally questionable action. MPs actions are morally questionable, where do you draw the line? I am trying to be rational.Believe it or not, I share your annoyance and your anger. But at the same time I can see that this is relative small scale compared with, say, Fred Goodwin, and very small scale with Jacques Chirac and friends of Dick Cheney. I suspect that it is the comprehendability of the sums involved that make this such a combustible subject. There is a chapter in "Parkinson's Law" that deals with a company board of directors making decisions - they deal with the purchase of a nuclear reactor costing £20 million in about 2 minutes, but spend several hours over a bicycle shed costing £150.I find Quillan's observations interesting. One point, however, I don't think that there is any obligation for MPs to live in their constituencies. An MP whose marital home is in Birmingham (with children settled in schools etc) may represent a constituency in Devon and require a pied a terre near Westminster. I am not justifying anything, simply pointing out a potential difficulty.I'll bet the the Daily Telegraph and its owners (the secretive Barclay brothers, of the Channel Islands?) are well pleased with this business. If, as has been suggested, they paid a large sum to an informant for all this information, is that morally justified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I'm not so sure that is actually the sums involved, personally its the lack of common sense and morals displayed by some of those claiming.For example someone paid for nappies, babies c**p wherever they are, in a first or second home, so why should the tax payer contribute ?The silly lady who wondered if the taxpayer may like to contribute to haveing her artex covered up, when she had lived with it for the previous five years ......where are her brains ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mint Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 they paid a large sum to an informant for all this information, is that morally justified?Don't they say that there's no such thing as a free lunch and aren't some things in life (as they keep telling us) beyond price? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Sorry to be picky, but I do believe it is actually "Perqs"; from the root word "Perquisites".http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/perquisitesUnless, of course one is American and then the expression seems to emanate from one Ralph Joseph Perk: and used in a derogatory manner.Two nations divided by a common language, yet again.Sigh......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I haven't seen the UK news since earlier this morning when Hazel Blears was reported as saying she would be paying some £13k to HMRC for capital gains tax.Earlier this week she said that she'd done nothing wrong in "flipping" her homes so why, now, would she be offering to give HMRC money that she was confident she didn't owe?If she does now owe the money can we expect HMRC to launch a possible fraud investigation and start issuing fines for non-payment of taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mint Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Paying back the money is one thing, what about the interest on the money and what about a proportion of the profit that the money has enabled her to make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 [quote user="Russethouse"]The silly lady who wondered if the taxpayer may like to contribute to having her artex covered up, when she had lived with it for the previous five years ......where are her brains ?[/quote]Ah well isn't Artex just soooo 1970's ? [;-)]I think the problem is that they (MP's) just keep sneaking things in to get them extra money. In November 2006 they voted in the Communications Allowance which was upgraded in March 2007 and available since April 2007 (source HERE). "The Communications Allowance provides funds to allow you, as a Member of Parliament, to communicate proactively with your constituents and inform them about your Parliamentary duties. You may claim up to £10,000 per year from this allowance." So how did they communicate before? On top of this, if you read the document, they can claim 'House Stationary' and pre-paid envelopes up to a value of £7,000 per year. Great they don't have to have meeting to tell you what they are up to at their expense now they can simply send you a letter at no cost to them.Now forgive me for being naive here but I always thought that a member of parliament was an elected member of the community who's job it is to represent said community. Personally I believe it should be just that and prospective MP's should not be allowed to move round the country to gain access to the HOC by way of a 'safe seat'. The first thing I would do is make in mandatory that any MP must be resident (including having their home, having their children educated there etc) in their constituency for a minimum of 10 years before being allowed to stand for parliament. They would then have a better understanding of the wants, needs and aspirations of their constituents.I then think that they should be given a housing allowance for rental of two bedded furnished accommodation within a 10 mile radius of the HOC. If they want to buy then that's up to them but they will get the same allowance as those who rent. The allowance should be indexed linked, after all they love indexed linked, they use it all the time with nurses, policemen, doctors and pensioners when liming their wage increases. [;-)] Should they then become a minister and get a 'Grace and Favour' house/flat they forfeit the monthly allowance. Grace and Favour homes can be treated like any other government building i.e. decorated once every 5 years (or whatever the period is) and repaired FOC to them.Political parties normally have offices in every constituency so they can make available an office for MP's to have their 'surgeries'.They would also get a free Zone 2 travel pass (Oyster card I think its now called). They keep telling us there's nothing wrong with public transport so they can use it the same as everyone else. Ministers can use pooled government cars for official business only but not for visiting their constituency as that's all ready covered below.They can get a free travel ticket home once a month for personal use plus another four per month to visit their constituency for business.They would get a grant equivalent to the average wage of a typical secretary (again index linked). Ministers get a civil servant anyway so there's no need to claim for them.That's about it, no expenses claims required. I think it would be an open system (everyone knows whats going on, how much it costs and everyone gets treated the same) yet not open to abuse.I know its a simplistic system but then simple is usually the best way to go in my book and saves confusion, people know exactly where they stand and what they are entitled too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 [quote user="sweet 17"]Paying back the money is one thing, what about the interest on the money and what about a proportion of the profit that the money has enabled her to make?[/quote]A simple answer would be is when should they have paid it and what interest would the tax people have charged from that time up to today. The chances of getting them to pay it however would be the same as finding rocking horse manure outside your front door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOther Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 [quote user="Clarkkent"]One point, however, I don't think that there is any obligation for MPs to live in their constituencies. An MP whose marital home is in Birmingham (with children settled in schools etc) may represent a constituency in Devon and require a pied a terre near Westminster.[/quote]Taking this literally and at the risk of prising the lid of yet another dubious practice one can't help wondering quite what a resident of Birmingham is doing representing a Devon constituency [blink] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Public opinion says Dave's on the up or is it Gordon on the way down (and out)?http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE54A0X920090513 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I think there is a tame Doctor hovvering in the back ground who will soon announce that Gordon for the good of his health should step down....I have believed for some time he is not the sort of man who would put himself up for election unless he was convinced he would win ......Even he must now think he has no chance and will soon be looking for a way out ..and those of his party now worried about their positions will be giving him a push . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOther Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 It's about the one thing about Moron which gives me immense pleasure, when he's gone, to his richly deserved shame and humiliation, history will record him as the worst PM in living memory.Truly a schadenfreude moment I look forward to with unconcealed realish [:D][:D][:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 [quote user="Quillan"][quote user="Russethouse"] The silly lady who wondered if the taxpayer may like to contribute to having her artex covered up, when she had lived with it for the previous five years ......where are her brains ?[/quote]Ah well isn't Artex just soooo 1970's ? [;-)]I think the problem is that they (MP's) just keep sneaking things in to get them extra money. In November 2006 they voted in the Communications Allowance which was upgraded in March 2007 and available since April 2007 (source HERE). "The Communications Allowance provides funds to allow you, as a Member of Parliament, to communicate proactively with your constituents and inform them about your Parliamentary duties. You may claim up to £10,000 per year from this allowance." So how did they communicate before? On top of this, if you read the document, they can claim 'House Stationary' and pre-paid envelopes up to a value of £7,000 per year. Great they don't have to have meeting to tell you what they are up to at their expense now they can simply send you a letter at no cost to them.Now forgive me for being naive here but I always thought that a member of parliament was an elected member of the community who's job it is to represent said community. Personally I believe it should be just that and prospective MP's should not be allowed to move round the country to gain access to the HOC by way of a 'safe seat'. The first thing I would do is make in mandatory that any MP must be resident (including having their home, having their children educated there etc) in their constituency for a minimum of 10 years before being allowed to stand for parliament. They would then have a better understanding of the wants, needs and aspirations of their constituents.I then think that they should be given a housing allowance for rental of two bedded furnished accommodation within a 10 mile radius of the HOC. If they want to buy then that's up to them but they will get the same allowance as those who rent. The allowance should be indexed linked, after all they love indexed linked, they use it all the time with nurses, policemen, doctors and pensioners when liming their wage increases. [;-)] Should they then become a minister and get a 'Grace and Favour' house/flat they forfeit the monthly allowance. Grace and Favour homes can be treated like any other government building i.e. decorated once every 5 years (or whatever the period is) and repaired FOC to them.Political parties normally have offices in every constituency so they can make available an office for MP's to have their 'surgeries'.They would also get a free Zone 2 travel pass (Oyster card I think its now called). They keep telling us there's nothing wrong with public transport so they can use it the same as everyone else. Ministers can use pooled government cars for official business only but not for visiting their constituency as that's all ready covered below.They can get a free travel ticket home once a month for personal use plus another four per month to visit their constituency for business.They would get a grant equivalent to the average wage of a typical secretary (again index linked). Ministers get a civil servant anyway so there's no need to claim for them.That's about it, no expenses claims required. I think it would be an open system (everyone knows whats going on, how much it costs and everyone gets treated the same) yet not open to abuse.I know its a simplistic system but then simple is usually the best way to go in my book and saves confusion, people know exactly where they stand and what they are entitled too.[/quote]Can't fault any of that, Quillan: excellent post and concepts.Also agree totally about residence: my own MP for many years was foisted onto the constituency by Central Office since it was a safe seat.Cabinet Ministers and Secs. of State cannot adequately represent their constituents either, since in order to preserve their jobs, they will always toe the party line even where 99% of their electors demand different.Interesting that Finkelstien in today's Times, http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/1684063/ShowPost.aspx (As referenced by Sweets, earlier: Hat Tip!), makes precisely the same point I made here a couple of years or so ago, about MPs not being allowed to vote in debates unless they have been present for the whole debate!So often I have been with MPs in the House or on the terrace; and even in Ministries with ministers when the division bell has rung: and suddenly off they run to the siren call of the whips!How they can exercise the sort of Due Diligence required in our interest I know not.No wonder so much dodgy legislation has been steamrollered through in the past 30 years or so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 If a follow up to all these claims results in a finding that after money was claimed for work carried out ...or goods and services bought ...there is no evidence to show where the money was spent. It should mean that a fraud investigation will be carried out by the boys in blue ...Because if actual payments for a couple of hundred turns out to be a claim for a couple of thousand like I suspect it might .and the Westminster staff have aided them in the false accounting ...one big can of worms !.....Then a general election should be just round the corner ...half of them will be banged up .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 This is why GB and the Speaker are banging on about outside auditors for expenses and going back four years and continuing in to the future. I tried to get this over before, if they use accounting companies to do this then they are protected by confidentiality clauses and are not subject to being published under the Freedom of Information act so nobody will have a clue whats going on.As far as a General Election is concerned would you like to be the in the next government or be the next PM, I know I wouldn't like to be. Think about it, there's is a lot going to come out of the woodwork in the next couple of years about the collapse of the economy. Then we have the ever increasing debt piling up with policies put in place by the government before the election which will have to carry forward in to the next parliamentary term. There will be lots of these comittees reporting in at the end of the year, begining of the next which will have to be actioned. Massive cuts in the public sector, school and hospital closures, new schools and hospitals put on hold because we can't afford it. Tax's going up for everyone (bet whoever gets in does not reintroduce the 10p tax rate whoever they are). No its hard times ahead for the UK and everyone will hurt as it claws its way out of this terrible mess GB has got it in to. So no its not the election you want to win just like I said about the last one and I hate to say it I was right (for once). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 And another thing......http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8048292.stmI hope no one plays the class card again, he's not doing a good job, end of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now